Regulatory Enforcement, Airline Pilots Association vs Quesada - Assignment Example

Final Examination Questions Affiliation with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact Final Examination Questions Question 1 – Regulatory Enforcement: The government enacts various administrative laws and regulations with a view to make the citizens abide by them so that the general interest of the society is safeguarded. Compliance by citizens with these rules is a critical aspect of the success all government regulations and it occurs only when actions of the public remain “consistent with legal commands” (Harrington & Carter, 2009, p.267). However, in order to ensure compliance by citizens and to facilitate the expected changes in “social practices,” the laws have to be specific and unambiguous (p.267). The issue of enforcement arises when people do not abide with the relevant rules and compliance becomes absent. In the case of abuse of sick cows in the Californian factory, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has intervened in the problem because of noncompliance with the rules by the company. Californian laws mandate that cows that are unhealthy and cannot stand shall be “humanely euthanized” and their bodies destroyed rather than being sold as meat (p.266). The factory, however, defied these rules by selling the meat of sick cows slaughtered in their farms. When news of the same appeared in the media, the USDA intervened in the matter to enforce the relevant rules relating to the slaughter of cows and to protect public interest. The enforcement action by the USDA primarily benefits the public because the citizens are the main consumers of meat. Eating the meat of sick cows can be a source of health problems for the public and, hence, the action by the USDA envisages the welfare of the public. On the other hand, it also benefits the workers because slaughtering sick cows and converting them to meat can be both distressing and hazardous to them. In the second instance, the President of the United States, the “chief enforcer of laws” in the nation has had to intervene on the issue of scientific findings that connect climate changes to the human actions. Thus, he has made deals with countries in the European Union to reduce the emissions of carbon subject to the condition that countries like India and China “agreed to do the same” (p.266). In the context of political situations like this a country issues economic or trade sanctions against another country or countries to enforce compliance of certain policies. Question 2 – Airline Pilots Association Vs Quesada: Pilots often have to encounter “unexpected and undefined” situations in their profession, which call for a high level of mental alertness and other competencies (Pilot Training Compass, 2013, p.7). In addition, long hours of flying and the need to handle complex technologies can be distressing especially to pilots in the older age group, and the resultant fatigue can be a causative element for “aviation accidents” (Jackson & Earl, 2006, p.263). On the other hand, the Federal Aviation Administration has to accord priority to the aspects of national security and safety in commercial airline industry. Thus, the regulation that FAA has issued relating to the automatic termination of license once the pilot attains the age of 60, has been largely in public interest to ensure absolute safety in commercial airline operations. The FAA’s ruling is also based on the premise that they do not have the resources to frequently monitor the status of health status of pilots, who are likely to be prone to many health problems beyond that age. However, the pilots contend that they have not been offered the opportunity to be heard before the ruling has been mandated by the FAA and, accordingly, they have filed a law suit, challenging the regulation. In my personal opinion, the decision that FAA has taken is reasonable as their first priority needs to be the safety in airline operations. Their decision also supports the larger public interest albeit limits the career growth of a few pilots who will be above the age of 60. It needs no emphasis that people who cross the age of 60 usually remain prone to diseases of varying nature, especially mental and physical stress. Such problems can compromise the health and competency of pilots at the cut off age, which can be hazardous to the safety of passengers. The pilots’ argument that they have not been afforded an opportunity to be heard does not seem to be of much significance in the instant case as the ruling does not relate to any specific aspect of their profession but generally relates to their age factor. The government and administrative authorities have to consider the safety of the public first and the privileges of certain segments of the society deserve only secondary consideration. Thus, the judge will rule that the termination of license of pilots after they cross the threshold of sixty is a reasonable ruling issues in public interest, to ensure the safety of airline passengers. Question 3 – United States Vs Morgan: In this case, the Secretary of Agriculture is alleged to have bias as he has earlier wrote to the New York Times, criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan Case. The Secretary of Agriculture had reopened the case and “found and fixed” the rates for the impounding period, which were the same level as had been fixed through the original order (United States V Morgan, 2014). It is a fact that the secretary had previously expressed his opinion on the case and hence there can be bias on his part when he reconsidered the same case about which he has stated an opinion previously. However, in the instant case it needs to be considered that his previous opinion has been made on the notion that the decision of the court would entail return of the “impounded funds” to marketing agencies (2014). Thus, when he considered the case again for a second time, he had explained his mistaken understanding of the position and denied that he had any bias. He had also referred to the fact that on the one hand the market agencies pressed for his disqualification on the grounds of bias, on the other hand they urged that only the secretary was legally empowered to “make the rate order” (2014). This suggested that irrespective of what his personal opinion on the matter was, he still had the official power to fix the rates in the instant case. Moreover, he had clearly explained that his opinion on the previous occasion had been due to a misunderstanding of the position. Thus, when reopened the case, it was in the light of the correct understanding of the implications of the issue. Therefore, the Supreme Court has ruled out bias in the case and held that “quite different considerations” had been applied in the case by the Secretary in fixing the rates (2014). Therefore, since the decision of the secretary in fixing the rates was based on new facts aside from those in his letter to the newspaper, his letter to the newspaper should not disqualify him from fixing the rates in his official capacity. Question 4 – Mathews Vs Eldridge: George H Eldridge filed a case against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, challenging the termination of his disability benefits under social security scheme on the ground that it constituted the violation of his constitutional rights. The District Court of West Virginia held that the administrative procedures in the instant case were unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the Courts of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision in favor of the Secretary HE&W on the premise that the current administrative procedures followed by the department “fully comport with due process” (424 US 319, 2010, p.1). In this case, the Supreme Court could have denied Eldridge’s claim on the grounds that he had not exhausted the due process as prescribed by the relevant provisions under Social Security Act. The administrative remedies are available for citizens, if and when any of their privileges are denied by agencies of the government. The Supreme Court has the discretion to reject the case on the premise that the administrative remedies have not been because it is a mandatory requirement under the Social Security Act that aggrieved persons need to first exhaust all remedies before approaching the court for redressing any grievances. However, the Secretary HE&W can waive this requirement if he feels that the benefits or grievances of the appellant are beyond his power to confer. In the instant case, the Secretary is the appellant and, therefore, the Supreme Court could have denied the claim of Eldridge on the ground that he had not exhausted available administrative recourses under the Social Security Act. This would qualify under the lack of compliance under the due process of laws and regulations relating to social security issues. Reference List 424 US 319, 96 Ct.893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18. (2010). Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from Harrington, C. B. & Carter, L. H. (2009). Administrative Law and Politics: Cases and Comments. 4th ed. California: CQ Press. Jackson, C. A. & Earn, L. (2006). Prevalence of Fatigue among Commercial Pilots. Occupational Medicine, Vol.56: pp.263-268. Pilot Training Compass: “Back to the Future.” (2013). European Cockpit Association. Retrieved from United States Vs Morgan – 313 US 409 (1941). Home Page of Justia.com. Retrieved from Read More