最近(2014/2015) 美國 行政判例의 動向 및 分析 硏究

The United States Supreme Court, in its 2014 to 2015 term, addressed many diverse issues, ranging from abortion and birth control to zoning and planning. Decisions of note included the holdings in King v. Burwell, that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorized federal subsidies for health insurance purchased on exchanges established by the federal government for States that have not established their own exchanges. The Court deemed the question too important to apply Chevron deference. But the Court did not explain in any detail why not. The case thus sets new precedent for the Court to rigorously review agency rulemaking in certain policy areas, without specifically delineating those areas. In the long run, this could represent a shift of power away from the executive and in favor of the courts on agency action. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, National trade association for real estate finance industry brought action against Department of Labor (DOL), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on its claim that Deputy Administrator violated Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirement by issuing an Administrator’s Interpretation withdrawing a prior opinion letter that concluded that mortgage-loan officers fell within administrative exemption from Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and minimum wage requirements. Michigan v. E.P.A., holding that the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. Although the holding in Michigan v. EPA quite clearly goes against the Agency, the broader significance of the case is probably very limited. The case likely only represents a temporary diversion for the Agency in arriving at exactly the same decision. This article notes the issues that were addressed by the United States Supreme Court in its 2014 to 2015 term.