For these cases, answer without looking at the cases. Just give your expert opinion/feedback without referencing the cases. Thank you. A couple good paragraphs for each is fine.

 

1. Scrap metal is a big business in Tennessee, and most of the scrap metal is shipped out of state. Tennessee was concerned that much of the metal being sold to dealers in the state was stolen, so the legislature passed a law designed to give law enforcement a better opportunity to determine whether metal on dealers’ lots was stolen. The new law included, among other provisions, requirements for screening of metal sellers, record keeping requirements, and a 10-day waiting period between when purchased metal could be resold by a dealer. The Scrap Recyclers Association sued the state, arguing that the law violated the Commerce Clause and also the Fifth Amendment. The district court upheld the law and the Recyclers appealed. 

Does the law violate the Commerce Clause? Does the law violate the Fifth Amendment? Why or why not? (In your response, do not quote the entire Fifth Amendment - only a small part of it applies here and you want to be sure you meet the 80/20 rule.)

2. Please turn to problem 18-18 on page 483 in our text. We’re going to use this case to explore multiple aspects of Administrative law. Remember not to look up the case or use any information from the case decision in your posts until I ask you to do so which won’t be until after I have posted the case decision.

Lion Raisins, Inc. is a family-owned business that grows and markets raisins to private enterprises. In May 1999, a USDA investigation reported that Lion appeared to have falsified inspectors’ signatures, given false moisture content, and changed the grade of raisins on three USDA raisin certificates issued between 1996 and 1998. Lion was subsequently awarded five more USDA contracts. In January 2001, however, the USDA awarded these contracts to other bidders and, on the basis of the May 1999 report, suspended Lion from participating in government contracts for one year. Lion filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the USDA, seeking, in part, lost profits on the school lunch contracts on the ground that the USDA’s suspension was arbitrary and capricious. 

Was the suspension of Lion Raisins from participating in government contracts for one year arbitrary and capricious? Why or why not?