Understanding Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction in Comparative Administrative Law

 
LL.M. SEMESTER II
LL.M. SEMESTER II
COURSE CODE : 204E (Gr-B)
COURSE CODE : 204E (Gr-B)
COURSE TITLE : COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
COURSE TITLE : COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
UNIT III : AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
UNIT III : AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES
3.2 DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
3.2 DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
 
Presented by –
Dr. Sangeeta Chatterjee
Assistant Professor
Department of Law,
Bankura University
 
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
 
Within constitutional limits, Congress may create
administrative agencies with adjudicatory power.
Congress may also define the jurisdiction of Article III courts.
As a result, Congress has the greatest control over the
balance of power between courts and agencies.
It can provide exclusive jurisdiction over a matter to one
tribunal, or provide concurrent jurisdiction to both.
Neither courts nor agencies can disregard these statutory
boundaries.
 
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
 
When a court wishes to defer to the adjudicatory authority of an agency,
there are a number of legal means available.
Those are finality, ripeness, and exhaustion.
A related but less popular means of deference is the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.
Because it is applied infrequently, the shape of this doctrine is not fully
defined.
The circuit courts employ differing conceptions of primary jurisdiction.
They utilize different factors in their analysis and apply different
standards of review.
 
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION : THE CONCEPT
JURISDICTION : THE CONCEPT
 
Primary jurisdiction is the doctrine which might
prompt a court to yield to an agency before deciding an
issue.
It provides that, in cases raising issues of fact not within
the conventional experience of judges or requiring the
exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created
by 
Congress for regulating the subject matter involved
“should not be passed over.”
 
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION : THE PURPOSE
JURISDICTION : THE PURPOSE
 
The purpose of this wholly judge-made doctrine is not
to divide powers between courts and agencies but to
determine which tribunal should take 
initial 
action.
It means to decide between the appropriate tribunals.
More specifically, in cases of administrative discretion,
it determines which court or tribunal has the primary
jurisdiction.
 
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION : EXPLANATION
JURISDICTION : EXPLANATION
 
Thus, a court 
may have jurisdiction and yet stay its proceedings
pending administrative determination of a particular issue or
dismiss the case even though the eventual agency decision will
be subject to judicial 
review.
The reason being that, the court dealing with administrative
determination has the primary jurisdiction.
Owing to that reason, other jurisdictional courts may stay their
proceedings or dismiss the case.
 
REASONS FOR APPLICATION OF
REASONS FOR APPLICATION OF
THE DOCTRINE
THE DOCTRINE
 
The rationale for the application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is
traditionally expressed in terms of both the necessity for uniformity of
application of a law and the need for administrative expertise.
Commentators agree that the doctrine is primarily applicable to
controversies arising in the so-called regulated 
industries.
Legislative intent, as 
implemented by a pervasive and systematic
scheme of agency regulation is the factor prompting deference to
administrative 
determination.
The principal criterion 
for determining the applicability of primary
jurisdiction is whether there is judicial need for resort to administrative
judgment.
 
ORIGIN OF  THE DOCTRINE
ORIGIN OF  THE DOCTRINE
 
The primary jurisdiction doctrine was first promulgated by the
Supreme Court in 
Texas 
& 
Pacific Railway v. Abilene Cotton Oil
Co., 
204 
U.S. 
426 
(1907)
.
In that case, a shipper contended that a published carrier rate
was unreasonable and sued the carrier in a state court for the
excess.
The Supreme Court held that only the Interstate Commerce
Commission could determine whether the carrier rate was
reasonable.
 
ORIGIN OF  THE DOCTRINE
ORIGIN OF  THE DOCTRINE
 
Although the Commerce Act provided for concurrent
jurisdiction in the agency and the courts, the Court reasoned
that the purpose of the Act was to provide for uniform rates
and that state court jurisdiction, without prior recourse to the
agency, would render the Act unenforceable.
Thus, the case creating the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did
not mention agency expertise; rather, the Court sought to
further the uniform application of a federal statute.
 
CURRENT POSITION OF  THE
CURRENT POSITION OF  THE
DOCTRINE
DOCTRINE
 
The Tenth Circuit provided a thorough discussion of the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.
First stated that primary jurisdiction is a prudential doctrine
arising in cases where Congress has placed an issue within the
"special competence" of an agency.
The doctrine serves two purposes, promoting both regulatory
uniformity and resort to agency expertise, and it allows a court
to stay judicial proceedings pending appropriate
administrative action.
 
AIMS OF  THE DOCTRINE
AIMS OF  THE DOCTRINE
 
The benefit to the court of an agency determination.
The burden on the parties of withholding judicial relief.
The need to maintain the proper working relationship
between courts and agencies.
The desire to avoid potential interference with an
agency's performance of its statutory 
responsibilities.
 
CRITICISM
CRITICISM
 
Most of the confusion surrounding the primary
jurisdiction doctrine results from the manner in which
the Court used the phrase, "primary jurisdiction," in
Abilene Cotton 
and 
Merchants Elevator
. 
In the context of
those early cases, the Court actually meant jurisdiction
when it said "jurisdiction." But over the course of the
twentieth century, primary jurisdiction evolved into a
doctrine that-for better or worse-has departed from the
plain implication of its name.
 
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
 
Today, primary jurisdiction does not define the actual
scope of authority of courts or agencies. Rather, it allows
a court to refrain from exercising its authority to further
the objectives that the doctrine has now come to
represent. Primary jurisdiction, as currently conceived,
is a means of deciding which tribunal is the more
advantageous decision-maker when the issue could be
presented to either.
 
REFERENCE :
REFERENCE :
 
1.
Aaron J . Lockwood, The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine:
Competing Standards of Appellate Review, 
Washington &
Lee Law Review, Vol. 64, 2007
.
2.
Howard M. Boyd, Larry E. Christensen, Charles D. Ganz,
David W. Hardee, 
Elisabeth S. Petersen and Wendell
Schollander, 
Primary Jurisdiction and Its Subsequent Effect
on Judicial Review, 
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 149, 1971
.
Slide Note
Embed
Share

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction plays a crucial role in determining whether a court should yield to an administrative agency for certain issues. It helps in deciding which tribunal should take the initial action, especially in cases involving administrative discretion. This doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings pending administrative determinations and emphasizes the importance of administrative expertise in specific subject matters.


Uploaded on Aug 08, 2024 | 1 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. LL.M. SEMESTER II COURSE CODE : 204E (Gr-B) COURSE TITLE : COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT III : AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES 3.2 DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION Presented by Dr. Sangeeta Chatterjee Assistant Professor Department of Law, Bankura University

  2. INTRODUCTION Within administrative agencies with adjudicatory power. Congress mayalsodefine the jurisdiction of Article III courts. As a result, Congress has the greatest control over the balanceof power between courts and agencies. It can provide exclusive jurisdiction over a matter to one tribunal, or provide concurrent jurisdiction to both. Neither courts nor agencies can disregard these statutory boundaries. constitutional limits, Congress may create

  3. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION When a court wishes to defer to the adjudicatory authority of an agency, there are a numberof legal means available. Those are finality, ripeness, and exhaustion. A related but less popular means of deference is the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Because it is applied infrequently, the shape of this doctrine is not fully defined. Thecircuitcourts employ differing conceptions of primary jurisdiction. They utilize different factors in their analysis and apply different standards of review.

  4. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION : THE CONCEPT Primary jurisdiction is the doctrine which might prompt a court to yield to an agency before deciding an issue. It provides that, in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter involved should not be passed over.

  5. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION : THE PURPOSE The purpose of this wholly judge-made doctrine is not to divide powers between courts and agencies but to determinewhich tribunal should take initial action. It means to decide between the appropriate tribunals. More specifically, in cases of administrative discretion, it determines which court or tribunal has the primary jurisdiction.

  6. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION : EXPLANATION Thus, a court may have jurisdiction and yet stay its proceedings pending administrative determination of a particular issue or dismiss the case even though the eventual agency decision will be subject to judicial review. The reason being that, the court dealing with administrative determination has the primary jurisdiction. Owing to that reason, other jurisdictional courts may stay their proceedings ordismiss thecase.

  7. REASONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE The rationale for the application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is traditionally expressed in terms of both the necessity for uniformity of application of a law and the need foradministrative expertise. Commentators agree that the doctrine is primarily applicable to controversies arising in the so-called regulated industries. Legislative intent, as implemented by a pervasive and systematic scheme of agency regulation is the factor prompting deference to administrative determination. The principal criterion for determining the applicability of primary jurisdiction is whether there is judicial need for resort to administrative judgment.

  8. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE The primary jurisdiction doctrine was first promulgated by the Supreme Court in Texas & Pacific Railway v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 (1907). In that case, a shipper contended that a published carrier rate was unreasonable and sued the carrier in a state court for the excess. The Supreme Court held that only the Interstate Commerce Commission could determine whether the carrier rate was reasonable.

  9. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE Although jurisdiction in the agency and the courts, the Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to provide for uniform rates and that state court jurisdiction, without prior recourse to the agency, would render the Act unenforceable. Thus, the case creating the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not mention agency expertise; rather, the Court sought to furtherthe uniform application of a federal statute. the Commerce Act provided for concurrent

  10. CURRENT POSITION OF THE DOCTRINE The Tenth Circuit provided a thorough discussion of the primary jurisdiction doctrine. First stated that primary jurisdiction is a prudential doctrine arising in cases where Congress has placed an issue within the "special competence" of an agency. The doctrine serves two purposes, promoting both regulatory uniformity and resort to agency expertise, and it allows a court to stay judicial proceedings administrative action. pending appropriate

  11. AIMS OF THE DOCTRINE The benefit to the court of an agency determination. The burden on the parties of withholding judicial relief. The need to maintain the proper working relationship between courts and agencies. The desire to avoid potential interference with an agency's performanceof its statutory responsibilities.

  12. CRITICISM Most jurisdiction doctrine results from the manner in which the Court used the phrase, "primary jurisdiction," in Abilene Cotton and Merchants Elevator. In the context of those early cases, the Court actually meant jurisdiction when it said "jurisdiction." But over the course of the twentieth century, primary jurisdiction evolved into a doctrine that-for better or worse-has departed from the plain implication of its name. of the confusion surrounding the primary

  13. CONCLUSION Today, primary jurisdiction does not define the actual scope of authority of courts or agencies. Rather, it allows a court to refrain from exercising its authority to further the objectives that the doctrine has now come to represent. Primary jurisdiction, as currently conceived, is a means of deciding which tribunal is the more advantageous decision-maker when the issue could be presented to either.

  14. REFERENCE : 1. Aaron J . Lockwood, The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine: Competing Standards of Appellate Review, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol. 64, 2007. 2. Howard M. Boyd, Larry E. Christensen, Charles D. Ganz, David W. Hardee, Elisabeth S. Petersen and Wendell Schollander, Primary Jurisdiction and Its Subsequent Effect on Judicial Review, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 149, 1971.

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#