I.  Federal Meat Inspection Act

Section 1. Prohibited conduct.

(a) No person may sell, transport, or offer for sale any meat or meat food products that are adulterated or misbranded.

(b) No person may sell, transport, or offer for sale any meat or meat food products except in compliance with the inspection standards of this Act.

Section 2. Regulations.

The Secretary of Agriculture may establish regulations to implement and administer Section 1 of this Act.

A.  The Secretary promulgates regulations that define when meat or meat food products are "adulterated" or "misbranded." The regulations also establish an inspection program to ensure that adulterated or misbranded meat or meat food products are not sold, transported, or offered for sale.

B. Question to think about: You are counsel for BigBeef, a major meat packing company that is unhappy with the regulations, and you want to challenge the regulations. More specifically, you want a court to declare the regulations invalid and to enjoin the agency from applying the regulations. Assuming, for the time being, that the regulations are reviewable, what court would have jurisdiction to review your challenge, and why? Where might you look to find out?

A. Assume that the Federal Meat Inspection Act authorizes State and federal officials to inspect meat packing plants to ensure compliance with the Act. Under the Act, state inspectors can enter meat packing plants only as part of a regularly scheduled routine inspection program.

B. Assume, for purposes of this hypothetical, that there is no judicial review provision in the Federal Meat Inspectors Act.

C. State officials enter one of BigBeef's meat packing plants without notice and search the plant.

D. Question to consider: As counsel to BigBeef, you want to sue the state agency in federal court for failing to comply with the conditions set out in the Act for inspections. More specifically, you want the court to enter a declaratory judgment that the state's inspection violated the statute, and to issue an injunction to prevent the state from conducting inspections except in accordance with the statute. Assuming that the State government's action is reviewable, could you bring this lawsuit in federal court? Where?

A. The Federal Meat Inspection Act includes a judicial review provision that states: "Orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under this Act may be reviewed by the district courts." The judicial review provision is silent regarding review of regulations promulgated under the Act.

B. After the Secretary of Agriculture initially promulgated the regulations described above, Big Beef brought an action in federal district court under the general federal question statute challenging the regulations.

C. The Secretary of Agriculture argues that since the Federal Meat Inspection Act specifically provides for review of orders, but does not provide for review of regulations, the statute precludes review of the Secretary's regulations.

D. Question to think about: How would you, as counsel for Big Beef, argue that the Secretary is wrong?

A. Assume that the Federal Meat Inspection Act includes an administrative inspection provision that provides that inspectors of the Department of Agriculture can inspect meat packing plants at any time for any reason, without giving notice.

B. Assume that the statute also includes a provision that prohibits judicial review of any orders, regulations or other actions taken by the Secretary of Agriculture or her representatives.

C. A federal meat inspector enters Big Beef's meat packing plant without notice, and conducts an inspection of the plant. Big Beef brings a lawsuit, challenging the provision in the Federal Meat Inspectors Act that authorizes warrantless searches as a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Secretary of Agriculture argues that the statute precludes review.

D. Question to think about: Who prevails and why?