THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF P UBLIC MANAGEMENT: PA 7332

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND POLICY SCIENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

SPRING 2008
WESTEC ROOM NUMBER 1.302
TUESDAY: 7:00 – 9:45 P.M.

Instructor: Stephanie P. Newbold, Ph.D.

Email: stephanie.newbold@utdallas.edu
Phone: 972.883.5341
Office: Westec Building 1.212
Office Hours: Before Class & By Appointment

COURSE D ESCRIPTION:

The purpose of this course is to examine the legal foundation and environment of public
management in the United States, a subject matter central to the intellectual, institutional,
and practical dynamics of public administration scholarship and practice. We will
emphasize how the Constitution affects the administrative state as well as how the
judiciary struggles to shape the public administrative process in its own image. This
course will explore the need for public managers to exhibit constitutional competence
while simultaneously examining how constitutional and administrative law influences the
decision- making processes and discretionary judgments of public mangers working in
public agencies.

COURSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

By the end of this doctoral seminar, students will be able to:

§ Develop an institutional, intellectual, and historical foundation for how the legal
environment of public affairs shapes various dynamics of public management at all
levels of government.

§ Identify the core elements of administrative law.

§ Discuss and analyze how the judiciary shapes the legal environment of the
administrative state and the nation’s democratic institutions.

§ Improve writing quality and analytical thinking.

REQUIRED TEXTS:

Breyer, Stephen. (2005). Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf. (Hereafter Referred to as “Breyer”).

Cooper, Phillip J. (2007). Public Law and Public Administration. 4th ed. Thompson-
Wadsworth Publishers. (Hereafter Referred to as “Cooper”).

Lee, Yong S. (2005). A Reasonable Public Servant: Constitutional Foundations of

Administrative Conduct in the United States. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
(Hereafter referred to as “Lee”).

Rosenbloom, David H. (2002). Building a Legislative-Centered Public Administration:

Congress and the Administrative State, 1946-1999. Tuscaloosa, Alabama:
University of Alabama Press. (Hereafter Referred to as “Rosenbloom”).

Selected State, Federal, and Supreme Court cases, which can be found on- line at
www.findlaw.com, www.lexisnexus.com, or in the library’s government documents
section.

RECOMMENDED TEXTS:

The following texts are not required but are recommended to students as excellent
sources in the area of constitutional and administrative law. They provide additional
commentary on many of the topics discussed in this course and would be welcome
additions to any public administration library.

Asimow, Michael, Arthur Earl Bonfield, and Ronald Levin. (1998). State and Federal
Administrative Law, 2nd Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Cooper, Phillip J. (2005). Cases on Public Law and Public Administration. Thompson-
Wadsworth.

Cooper, Phillip J. and Chester A. Newland, Eds. (1997). Handbook of Public Law and
Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse.
New York: Free Press.

Kerwin, Cornelius M. (1999). Rulemaking: How Agencies Write Law and Make Policy,
2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Rohr, John A. (2002). Civil Servants and their Constitutions. Lawrence: University of
Kansas Press.

2
Rohr, John A. (1995). Founding Republics in France and America: A Study in
Constitutional Governance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rohr, John A. (1989). Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values, 2nd ed. New
York: Marcel Dekker.

Rosenbloom, David H. (2003). Administrative Law for Public Managers. Boulder, CO:
Westview.

Rosenbloom, David H., James D. Carroll, and Jonathan D. Carroll. (2000).

Constitutional Competence for Public Managers: Cases and Commentary. Itasca,
IL: F.E. Peacock.

Westin, Alan F. (1990). The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case. New York:
Columbia University Press.

COURSE R EQUIREMENTS & EXPECTATIONS:

Three Written Reviews:

Students are required to submit reviews on rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review.
Each review should be approximately ten (10) typed, double-spaced pages. We will
discuss each of these areas of administrative law in class prior to submission. Reviews
will be due on the following dates:

Rulemaking: Class 6, February 12th

Adjudication: Class 8, February 26th
Judicial Review: Class 12, March 25th

Group Presentation & Individual Reaction:

Group projects and presentations are excellent ways for students to learn outside the
classroom, to educate and learn from their peers on a particular subject matter, and to
build teamwork skills. For this course, students will form their own groups, no larger
than four members, and select a Supreme Court case from the Roberts Court (September
2005 – present) of their choosing to present to the class. No group can examine the same
case as another. The presentation should cover the background history of the case, the
constitutional question(s) it raises for the Court; the key arguments for each position; how
the Court ruled; why the Justices came to their decision; and the strengths and
weaknesses of the affirming and dissenting opinions.

In addition to the group presentation, students are required to write an individual reaction
to the case they examined. For this component of the assignment, students are to
elaborate on the fundamentals of the case and the key points highlighted in their group
presentation. The individual analysis is due on the day (class 14, 15, or 16) of the group
presentation. This assignment should be approximately 10 to 12 pages in length.

3
Students are free to form their own groups and select their own cases. A list of group
participants and the case being examined is due to the professor no later than the third
class.

Final Examination:
There will be one examination at the end of the course, consisting of two parts. First,
students will be given six questions to take home and are required to answer at least
three. This component of the exam should not exceed ten (10) typed, double-spaced
pages. Students, for the second part of the exam, will write a reaction to Justice Stephen
Breyer’s work Active Liberty. This analysis should be no less than ten (10) typed,
double-spaced pages. The final exam is due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 5th . For this
assignment only, essays can be submitted to the professor’s office or by e- mail.

Rosenbloom Analysis:
Students are to submit a written reaction to David Rosenbloom’s Building A Legislative
Centered Public Administration. This work not only provides a welcomed addition to the
administrative history of American public administration but it also highlights the
changing role of Congress in shaping the legal environment of the administrative state.
This reaction should be no less than fifteen (15) typed, double-spaced pages. This
reaction is due on or before Class 11, March 18th .

Class Attendance & Participation:

Students are expected to attend class on-time and to participate in discussions. If you
cannot attend class or will be late, please inform the instructor as soon as possible.
Excessive absences and tardiness will affect your grade negatively.

Extensions and Special Exceptions for Assigned Work:

Students are expected to submit work on time. Unless prior arrangements are made with
the instructor, work submitted after the due date will be penalized a full letter grade for
each day late, including weekends. Emailed assignments will not be accepted unless the
student has made prior arrangements with the professor before the assignment is due.

Writing Expectations:
All written work submitted for this course must be typed and double-spaced. Correct
English, grammar, spelling, and punctuation is expected. Papers that do not meet this
expectation will be penalized; the worse the grammatical infraction(s) the more steep the
penalty. Graphs, charts, bullets, etc. should not be used for any of the assignments
submitted for this course. Students should write only in complete sentences. Please
remember that paragraphs consist of three or more complete sentences. All written work
should follow the Turabian format, should be submitted with a title page, and paginated.

Students with Disabilities:

Students classified as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act should advise
the professor of their condition, no later than the second class, so appropriate
accommodations can be made.

4
Academic Integrity:
Students are expected to uphold the University honor code at all times.

General Disclaimer:
The professor can amend the course syllabus at any time. If necessary, the professor will
announce and discuss these changes in class.

GRADING:

The evaluation for this course is based on the following percentages:

3 Written Reviews: 30%

Final Exam: 30%**
Group Presentation &
Individual Reaction 20%
Rosenbloom Critique: 15%
Class Participation: 5%

**The question part of the examination will count 15 percent; the reaction to Justice
Breyer’s work will count 15 percent.

COURSE CALENDAR:

CLASS I COURSE INTRODUCTION:

JANUARY 8
Review of the Syllabus & Course
Expectations

Historical Overview of Administrative

Law in the United States

View Film on the Role of the Courts in Preserving

American Constitutional Tradition

CLASS II THE ANATOMY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JANUARY 15 CASE

Lee, Chapter 4, p. 61-84

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

Cooper: Appendix I – Mathews v.

Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976), p. 580-628

5
 FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation, 120 S. Ct. 1291 (2000)

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene

Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 (1907)

CLASS III WHY THE PAST IS IMPORTANT –

JANUARY 22 PROVIDING A H ISTORICAL FOUNDATION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THE UNITED S TATES

Cooper: Chapter 4, “A History of Law and

Administration,” p. 86-132

Lee: Part I, Chapters 1-3, “Constitutional

Foundations of Public Service,” p. 3-58

Group Presentation Information Due at the

Beginning of Class

CLASS IV RULEMAKING I
JANUARY 29
Cooper: Appendix 3, Pay Close Attention to
Sections 553 & 556-557

Cooper: Chapter 5, p. 133-187

Newbold, S. and Rosenbloom D. (2007). “Critical

Reflections on Hamiltonian Perspectives on Rule-
Making and Legislative Proposal Initiatives by the
Chief Executive.” Public Administration Review,
67(6): 1047-56.

SUGGESTED READING, BUT NOT REQUIRED:

Newbold, S. and Rosenbloom D., Editors. (2007).
“Brownlow Report Retrospective.” Public
Administration Review, 67(6): 1006-9; AND

“Concluding the Symposium on the 70th

Anniversary of the President’s Committee on
Administrative Management.” Public
Administration Review, 67(6): 1057-58.

6
CLASS V RULEMAKING II
FEBRUARY 5
Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the
United States v. Block, 755 F2nd 1098, 4th Circuit
(1985)

U.S. et al. v. Florida East Railway Co. et al.,

(1973) 410 U.S. 224.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, 98 S. Ct. 1197
(1978)

Hoctor v. United States Department of Agriculture,

82 F3rd 165, 7th Circuit (1996)

CLASS VI ADJUDICATION I
FEBRUARY 12
Cooper: Chapter 6, p. 188-231

RULEMAKING PAPER DUE

CLASS VII ADJUDICATION II

FEBRUARY 19
Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908)

Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of

Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915)

City of West Chicago v. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, 701 F2d 632, 7th Circuit (1983)

CLASS VIII JUDICIAL R EVIEW I

FEBRUARY 26
Cooper: Chapter 7, p. 239-276

ADJUDICATION PAPER DUE

CLASS IX JUDICIAL R EVIEW II

MARCH 4
Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

7
 **Pay particular attention to Parts I, II, &
VII.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)

Connecticut State Medical Society v.

Connecticut Board of Examiners in Podiatry,
546 A2d 830 (Connecticut 1988)

California Hotel and Motel Association v.

Industrial Welfare Commission, 25 Cal.3d 200
(1979)

CLASS X NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK

MARCH 11

CLASS XI JUDICIAL R EVIEW III

M ARCH 18
United States v. Mead, 121 S Ct. 2164
(2001).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of

Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Discuss Rosenbloom.

ROSENBLOOM CRITIQUE DUE

CLASS XII THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL S ERVANTS

M ARCH 25
Cooper: Chapter 12, p. 473-509

Lee: Chapter 5, p. 85-110; Chapter 6, p. 111-131; &

Chapter 6, p. 132-151

JUDICIAL REVIEW PAPER DUE

8
CLASS XIII DEBATING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
APRIL 1 LEGISLATIVE AND LINE ITEM VETOES

Immigration and Naturalization Service v.

Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417

(1998)

CLASS XIV GROUP PRESENTATIONS

APRIL 8

CLASS XV GROUP PRESENTATIONS

APRIL 15

CLASS XVI GROUP PRESENTATIONS

APRIL 22
DISTRIBUTE FINAL EXAM, DUE M ONDAY, M AY 5TH
BY 5:00 P.M.