Filed June 11, 2007
Because any ambiguity as to Congress’ intent must be interpreted as an unambiguous intent not to repeal the prior statute, there is no “ambiguity” for purposes of Chevron deference for an agency to resolve. This was also the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Lujan-Armendiaz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000). As discussed above, in Lujan-Armendiaz, the Court held that a new statutory amendment to the immigration laws defining the term “conviction” did not impliedly repeal the provisions of the Federal First Offender Act, which provided for the exemption of certain first-time convictions from any use against the offender under the immigration laws.
Filed July 17, 2007
As a second reason for not applying Chevron deference, Stratman argues that whether section 1427 ratified Leisnoi’s eligibility is not the type of issue that Congress would have implicitly delegated to the Secretary to decide.63 Stratman cites Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.64 in support of his argument.65 In that case, the FDA had asserted jurisdiction under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to regulate tobacco products.66 The FDA had concluded that nicotine was a “drug” within the meaning of the Act and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco 61 Docket 96-3, at 13. 62 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000). 63 Docket 171, at 64-65.
Filed July 17, 2007
The cases relied upon by Plaintiff involve the latter situation. Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Natural Service, 222 F.3d 728 (9 Cir. 2000) (whether Congress intended in the 1996th amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act to deprive legal aliens of the protections of the Federal First Offenders Act against deportation); Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (1976) (whether provision of Securities and Exchange Act impliedly repealed provision Case 3:02-cv-00290-JKS Document 209 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 10 of 28 Stratman v. Leisnoi, 3:02-cv-0290 (JKS) US Reply on § 1427 5 of National Banks Act that limited venue of suits against national banks to the district where the bank is located); United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164 (1976) (whether the 1960 amendments to the Suits in Admiralty Act permitted claims previously governed by the Public Vessels Act to be filed free from the restrictive provisions of the Public Vessels Act). Friends of the Earth v Weinberger, 562 F.Supp. 265 (D. D.C 1983), also relied on by plaintiffs, is likewise irrelevant to the law relating to ratific
Filed February 16, 2010
, 16 L.B. Research and Educ. Found. v. UCLA Found., 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) .................................................................................................11 Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972) ...........................................................18 Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000).................................17 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................6 Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971)..........................................................17 Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008).................................16, 17 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985) .........................................16 Milnot Co. v. Richardson, 350 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. Ill. 1972)..........................23 Nat’l Ass’n of Optometrists & Opticians v. Brown, 567 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................................3 Nat’l Audobon Society, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002)..........10, 11 Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) ...........................................................15 Petzak v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., 579 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Nev. 2008).............17 Parker v. District of Columb