最近(2006/2007) 美國 行政判例의 動向 및 分析 硏究

The Supreme Court of the United States considered the scopes of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause as it applies to the notice requirements for a government sale of real property on the basis of delinquent taxes in Jones v. Flowers(126 S. Ct. 1708(2006)). The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not even apply to government employees’ speech that is part of their official duties in Garcetti v. Ceballos(126 S. Ct. 1951(2006)). The Supreme Court did not defer to a rule of the Army Corps of Engineers on the meaning of “navigable waters” under § 404 of the Clean Water Act because of the federalism concerns that infused the question in Rapanos v. United States(126 S. Ct. 2208(2006)). The Supreme Court ruled that agency's interpretation of preemptive effect of regulation on state law not entitled to deference under Chevron in Gonzales v. Oregon(546 U.S. 243 (2006)). The Ohio Supreme Court held that economic benefits alone were not sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement of the Ohio Constitution and that the courts owe no deference to a legislative finding that a proposed taking will create an economic benefit in City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115, 1141(Ohio 2006). The Supreme Court of the United States held that § 633a(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits retaliation against federal employees who file age discrimination complaints in Gomez–Perez v. Potter(128 S. Ct. 1931(2008)). The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a public employee cannot state an Equal Protection Clause claim for a “class of one” and recognizing a “class of one” would undermine government efficiency and effectiveness in Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric.(128 S. Ct. 2455 (2008)). The Supreme Court of the United States opinioned that the imposition of punitive damages to punish defendant for injuries of non-parties to the litigation violated the Due Process Clause because the defendant would not have the opportunity to defend against this claim in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams(127 S. Ct. 1057(2007)). The United States Supreme Court continues to review punitive damages awards to determine whether they comport with due process, reducing in 2008 to $507 million a $2.5 billion award against Exxon Shipping Co. for an oil spill by the tanker, in Exxon Valdez Exxon Shipping Co. v. Grant Baker(128 S.Ct. 2605(2008)).