Los Angeles Police Dep’t v. United Reporting Publ’g Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 40 (1999) (concluding, in a case involving “nothing more than a governmental denial of access to information in its possession,” that the State “could decide not to give out arrestee information at all without violating the First Amendment”); Zemel v. Rusk , 381 U.S. at 16-17 (“There are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow.”); Bonnichsen v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 969 F. Supp. 628, 648 (D. Or. 1997) (noting that “almost any forbidden conduct potentially can be cast in the form of a First Amendment right to gather knowledge, e.g., the right to smoke marijuana to gather knowledge about its effects”).19 Other than the flawed First Amendment position they advance, Plaintiffs offer no other basis for this Court to hold 28 U.S.C. 360(a) and 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B) unconstitutional. B. Plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Federal Records Act.

“Licensing” is defined to include “the grant of a license,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(9), which is defined to include an agency “permit.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(8). Thus, under the plain language of the APA, the Service’s decisions to issue permits squarely fall within the meaning of an “adjudication.”

“Licensing” is defined to include “the grant of a license,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(9), which is defined to include an agency “permit.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(8). Thus, under the plain language of the APA, the Service’s decisions to issue permits squarely fall within the meaning of an “adjudication.”

Case 1:16-cv-00236-RJL Document 105 Filed 08/19/16 Page 35 of 48 27 Executive director rendered a “final disposition,” or “determination” of the States’ requests and did so in the “affirmative.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(7). An agency adjudication can be either formal or informal.

(Compl. ¶18; 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B)) This exemption, however, directly conflicts with the Freedom of the Press to act as a check on the Judiciary in situations such as the one presented here where there are racist judges on the bench. “It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here.

Id. However, because Reserve Banks do not “by law” have authority to engage in rulemaking or adjudication, which two factors were critical to the courts’ decisions in Dong, 125 F.3d at 881, and Irwin, 640 F.2d at 1053, the Board believes that Lee is contrary to controlling precedent under § 551(1).

An “order” is “the whole or a part of a final disposition whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency other than rule making but including licensing.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(6). A “final disposition” is one that resolves a dispute between parties to administrative proceedings.

13]: 1. First Claim for Relief, for violation of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. §1171 et seq., the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §2701 et seq., and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq., on the ground that defendants’ issuance of Secretarial procedures (the “Secretarial Procedures”) for the conduct of Class III gaming by intervenor-defendant the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the “North Fork Tribe”) is arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law (5 U.S.C. §706(2)), because the Secretarial Procedures purport to authorize the North Fork Tribe to operate up to 2,500 slot machines in violation of the Johnson Act (5 U.S.C. §1175(a)), and the Johnson Act Case 2:16-cv-02681-AWI-EPG Document 29-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 5 4818-5428-8197.1 - 3 - PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2:16-CV-02681 AWI-EPG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SN E LL & W IL M E R L .L .P . 60 0 A N T O N B LV D , S U IT E 1 40 0 C O ST A M

“Licensing” is defined to include “the grant of a license,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(9), which is defined to include an agency “permit.” 5 U.S.C. § 551. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Marsh, 568 F. Supp. 985, 992 n.5 (D.D.C. 1983).

The brief answer is yes. Agency "rules" are broadly defined in Section 551 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed tri implement, interpret, or prescribe law & policy, or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency Agency rules include the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefor or of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any of the foregoing. [Footnote 13: See 5 U.S.C. § 551. ] Given the magnitude of the regulatory change that FDA would be enacting, despite the Durham-Humphrey Amendments, any FDA approval of an active ingredient for simultaneous Rx and OTC marketing is a new Agency "rule" that triggers notice and comment rulemaking. Case 1:07-cv-00668-JDB Document 45-4 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 44 of 415 Final Bracketed Comment Letter Report on Simultaneous Marketing ANPRM – Page 36 In order to issue a rule, an agency must complete a three step process - issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, receipt and consideration of comments on the proposed rule, and issuance of a final rule incorporating a statement of its basis and purpose.