Discuss what avenues may be available for Hal to challenge the agency’s decision, the legal basis for such a challenge, and what showing Hal must make to try to set aside or reverse the agency’s action.

Case study Hapless Hal operates a small environmental consulting business which assists agricultural feed lot operators in testing for emissions of methane and other hydrocarbon compounds. Hal inevitably deals with various federal agencies, and he must comply with many government regulations and programs. Recently, Hal sought to use new and different testing equipment. A government agency representative told Hal he could use the new equipment and that the equipment had been approved for the particular purpose Hal had in mind. Hal thus purchased the equipment. Unbeknownst to Hal, the applicable federal regulations did not allow the equipment to be used in the way in which Hal intended; consequently, the agency ordered Hal not to use it. Hal protested that he had relied upon the agency representative’s assurances and that not being able to use the equipment will cause him substantial economic harm. The agency’s position is that its regulations prohibit the equipment and its use, and that it is not bound by an employee’s error. Hal appealed the agency decision according to the agency’s initial appeal policy and again was denied relief. The agency’s policies provide a second review by the agency’s director, but that review is not mandatory. Hal chose not to exercise the optional review because he didn’t trust the agency after his recent experience. QUESTION: Discuss what avenues may be available for Hal to challenge the agency’s decision, the legal basis for such a challenge, and what showing Hal must make to try to set aside or reverse the agency’s action.

Last Completed Projects