Person LC is working as a professor at the University of Massachusetts’s department of plant, soil, and insect sciences. The professor applied in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for permission to register for the production of marijuana for clinical research. He stated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the usage of marijuana in medical and adequate quality supply. However, an administrative law judge suggested that the application can be granted but the DEA rejected the application. DEA stated that the professor has to prove that effective control for unapproved purposes of marijuana will be taken and that the competition to supply it is inadequate. The administration noticed that the professor did not prove the above concerns. The professor appealed to the U.S. Court to review the order. To find: The standard on which the court will defer to the agency’s interpretation and application of such standard.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 23, Problem 4CT

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person LC is working as a professor at the University of Massachusetts’s department of plant, soil, and insect sciences. The professor applied in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for permission to register for the production of marijuana for clinical research. He stated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the usage of marijuana in medical and adequate quality supply. However, an administrative law judge suggested that the application can be granted but the DEA rejected the application. DEA stated that the professor has to prove that effective control for unapproved purposes of marijuana will be taken and that the competition to supply it is inadequate. The administration noticed that the professor did not prove the above concerns. The professor appealed to the U.S. Court to review the order.

To find: The standard on which the court will defer to the agency’s interpretation and application of such standard.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

The Case of Baylor University Patty Crawford, the Title IX coordinator at Baylor from November 2014 to October 2016, was hired to coordinate the institution’s Title IX compliance when this case took place (Baylor University, n.d.). Like all Title IX coordinators, Crawford’s role was a comprehensive administrative role that bears the responsibility of ensuring that campuses prevent and respond to gender discrimination, including sexual misconduct. This role spans duties related to grievance process management, victim assistance, organization management, and climate management (Lake, 2017). In addition to managing the institution’s compliance, Title IX coordinators also craft comprehensive training and awareness strategies to ensure students, employees, and other campus stakeholders are aware of how to identify and report sexual misconduct and what resources are available to students regardless of whether they choose to proceed with the grievance process. Crawford alleged that she was…

1-5. THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT. Sandra White operated a travel agency. To obtain lower airline fares for her nonmilitary clients, she booked military-rate travel by forwarding fake military identification cards to the airlines. The U.S. government charged White with identity theft, which requires the “use” of another’s identification. As background, the court in the White case had two cases that represented precedents. In the first case, David Miller obtained a loan to buy land by representing that certain investors had approved the loan when, in fact, they had not. Miller’s conviction for identity theft was overturned because he had merely said that the investors had done something when they had not. According to the court, this was not the “use” of another’s identification. In the second case, Kathy Medlock, an ambulance service operator, had transported patients for whom there was no medical necessity to do so. To obtain payment, Medlock had forged a physician’s signature. The court…

Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) A Question of Ethics—Consumer Rights. Best Buy, a national electronics retailer, offered a credit card that allowed users to earn “reward points” that could be redeemed for discounts on Best Buy goods. After reading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis applied for, and was given, a credit card. As part of the application process, he visited a Web page containing Frequently Asked Questions as well as terms and conditions for the card. He clicked on a button affirming that he understood the terms and conditions. When Davis received his card, it came with seven brochures about the card and the reward point program. As he read the brochures, he discovered that a $59 annual fee would be charged for the card. Davis went back to the Web pages he had visited and found a statement that the card “may” have an annual fee. Davis sued, claiming that the company did not adequately disclose the fee. Applying what you learned…