NCLA Site Search

Cases

IHMPACT v. Buttigieg

CASE SUMMARY

On April 2, 2021, Transportation Secretary Peter Buttigieg arbitrarily rescinded  binding Department of Transportation rules that recognized a comprehensive set of rights, including a new mandate that DOT personnel voluntarily disclose all exculpatory evidence to those targeted by a civil enforcement action. This rule applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland to the administrative context. DOT first addressed longstanding concerns about civil enforcement abuse in a February 2019 General Counsel’s memorandum. Shortly thereafter, the Bradbury Memo’s key provisions, requiring, among other things, prohibiting “fishing expedition” investigations without sufficient evidence in hand to support a violation, ending endless enforcement, and mandating fair and transparent civil penalties, were codified into binding rules.

Buttigieg seemingly revoked DOT’s due process rules to comply with President Biden’s “Day One” Executive Order demanding that agencies “rescind any orders, rules regulations, guidelines or policies” that supposedly inhibit the federal government’s ability to address “the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change.” But Buttigieg did not explain why or how affording due process might “threaten” DOT’s response to these issues. Buttigieg revoked the rules without allowing Hazardous Materials Packaging and Certification Testing, Inc. (IHMPACT) or the public to comment beforehand, and he did so without considering IHMPACT members’ reliance interests, even though Congress and Supreme Court precedent require it.

NCLA filed a lawsuit on IHMPACT’s behalf,  arguing that once substantive rights are extended, no federal agency may lawfully take them away by fiat. DOT would have to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to repeal the rules.

OUR TEAM

Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction

May 28, 2021 | Read More

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

May 28, 2021 | Read More

Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

May 18, 2021 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

Transportation Secretary Buttigieg Runs Over Due Process, NCLA Sues

May 18, 2021 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

Small-Biz Group Sues DOT To Protect Transparency Rules

Law360

February 7, 2023

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.