Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States - Essay Example

The facts in question in the iconic case of the 1983 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association versus State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company are, briefly, as follows. The issue of Modified Standard 208 by the ordinance of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made the incorporation of passive restraints such as airbags and passive seatbelts mandatory in all automobiles manufactured after September 1982 to ensure better public as well as occupant safety. However, before this new regulation could come into effect, a new Secretary of Transportation assumed office and the implementation of the Standard was delayed for one year. NHTSA, then, called a public hearing after reopening the rulemaking process, where forth the Modified Standard 208 was retracted. Their claim stated that the utilitarian values of airbags and passive seatbelts are no longer justifiable in automobile security given, questioning the benefits of passive restraints. However, this withdrawal of the rule indicated that the decision was not a result of the proven ineffectiveness of passive restraints but rather one based on the interests of large automobile companies. As was duly shown, a staggering 99% of the motor vehicle industry was at that time incorporating automatic seatbelts into their models that could be easily detached. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (MVMA) of the United States demanded a court review of the rulemaking on parameters less ‘arbitrary and capricious. The petitioners were represented by Solicitor Rex E. Lee (U.S Department of Transportation) and Mr. Lloyd N. Cutler (MVMA) while James F. Fitzpatrick spoke on the behalf of the respondents.

Brief Assessment

Solicitor Lee’s opening statement gave a comprehensive account of the facts in question regarding the case as well as a general assessment of the motivating factors behind Secretary Coleman’s and his successor Secretary Adam’s attitudes towards Standard 208.

He petitioned, on the behalf of State Farm Mutual, who requested a review of the agency’s decision to retract Standard 208. In his turn, Mr. Cutler presented his argument with gusto, clarity backed by relevant statistics and figures to show that the public reception of passive restraints was not only negative but that detachable seatbelt, in cases of accidents, was safer for the occupant. I find both sides were convincing and clear enough in presenting their points. The questions by the judges were crucial, and to some extent, indicated a slight incredulity towards the justification of the repealing of the restrictive regulation stipulated under Standard 208.

The court was to review and issue a ruling based on whether “facts found and the choices made” were relational or truly “arbitrary and capricious”. The court ruled the facts directing the previous rescinding to be insufficient and inconclusive in indicating that passive restraints were not preventive of accidents. I believe, to an extent, the agency’s decision to rescind the Standard may have been a result of bureaucratic politics, a natural consequence of the change of power as the new Secretary of Transportation assumed office. However, it is indubitable that the court could find no “direct evidence” to justify the retraction of Standard 208 and was unbiased in its ruling.

Impact and Significance

The historical Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803 initiated a momentous change in the US legal system by establishing the ground for judicial review in assessing the constitutional applicability and integrity of legislations. The ideological and constitutional effect of the Marbury vs. Madison case has been enduring. The key importance of the MVMA versus State Farm Mutual Insurance Company lies in the fact that this case throws into sharp relief the pitfalls as well as the effectiveness of the judicial review system. It is also significant in its relational position with several other similar cases.

From the early 1930s, the interrelated socio-economic and technical aspects and market impacts of governmental regulation and judicial reviews have been much studied and analyzed (Breyer 363). The MVMA vs. State Farm Mutual is a vital case in point. Related instances of contested judicial reviews and motor safety regulations are Chevron U.S.A Inc vs. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. of 1984, and Patricia M. Wood et al. vs. General Motors Corporation of 1989 respectively.

My primary focus must be on the crux of the conflict. The original judicial review that rescinded the restrictive regulation Standard 208 drew jurisdiction from the NHTSA act of 1966. It is a vitally important act in the justice system of the USA. It marks the confluence of two distinct movements – the political movement for the reform of federal administrative regulations and the reshaping of automobile safety regulations. (Marshaw and Harfst 257) It created a nationwide pro-active regulative effort to ensure public transportation safety. The impact of the stated arbitrariness and capriciousness, as revealed in the rescission of standard 208, shows the implicit loopholes in the regulatory practices of the government.