DE Bar Administrative Law 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: After Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), how must federal courts treat an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute?
- Exercise independent judgment on the statute's meaning rather than deferring under Chevron (Correct answer)
- Automatically defer if the interpretation is reasonable
- Certify the question to the agency for a binding answer
- Apply rational basis review to the interpretation
Correct answer: Exercise independent judgment on the statute's meaning rather than deferring under Chevron
Loper Bright overruled Chevron, requiring courts to interpret statutes independently while agency views may still carry persuasive weight.
Question 2: Which agency action is generally exempt from notice-and-comment requirements under APA principles?
- An interpretive rule or general statement of policy (Correct answer)
- A substantive rule imposing new obligations
- A regulation fixing license fees
- A rule repealing an existing substantive regulation
Correct answer: An interpretive rule or general statement of policy
Interpretive rules, policy statements, and procedural rules are exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Question 3: In a formal administrative adjudication, procedural due process at minimum requires:
- Notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker (Correct answer)
- A twelve-person jury
- Appointed counsel at state expense
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Correct answer: Notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker
Due process in adjudication requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial tribunal, not criminal-trial safeguards.
Question 4: A Delaware agency issues a decision unsupported by any record evidence and misapplies the governing statute. On appeal, the Superior Court should:
- Reverse or remand because the decision lacks substantial evidence and contains legal error (Correct answer)
- Affirm because agency decisions are unreviewable
- Retry the case with new witnesses
- Transfer the matter to the Court of Chancery for equitable relief
Correct answer: Reverse or remand because the decision lacks substantial evidence and contains legal error
A reviewing court sets aside agency action that is unsupported by substantial evidence or infected by errors of law.
Question 5: The doctrine of ripeness prevents judicial review when:
- The agency action is not final and the dispute rests on contingent future events (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff has suffered concrete injury
- The agency has issued its final order
- The statute expressly authorizes immediate review
Correct answer: The agency action is not final and the dispute rests on contingent future events
Ripeness bars review of agency action that is not final or whose impact remains speculative.
Question 6: An agency head who personally investigated and publicly prejudged a respondent's guilt then presides over the hearing. The best objection is:
- Bias violating the right to an impartial decision-maker (Correct answer)
- Improper venue
- Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
- Failure to join an indispensable party
Correct answer: Bias violating the right to an impartial decision-maker
Due process forbids adjudication by a decision-maker who has prejudged the facts or has a disqualifying bias.
Question 7: Under Delaware FOIA, a citizen denied access to public records may first seek review by:
- Petitioning the Attorney General for an opinion on whether a violation occurred (Correct answer)
- Filing directly in the U.S. District Court
- Complaining to the Registrar of Regulations
- Requesting a legislative override
Correct answer: Petitioning the Attorney General for an opinion on whether a violation occurred
Delaware FOIA allows aggrieved citizens to petition the Attorney General for a determination before or instead of suing.
DE Bar Administrative Law 3
After Loper Bright Enterprises v.
Raimondo (2024), how must federal courts treat an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute?